Jerusalem Journal

- text and images taken from multiple sources selected and edited by giovanna celeghin - text and images taken from multiple sources

J ERVSALEM j o u r n a l ‫םילשורי ןמוי‬

‫ةلجم سدقلا‬

selected and edited by giovanna celeghin - text and images taken from multiple sources selected and edited by giovanna celeghin -

CONTROL OF THE OLD CITY CORE OF AN ISSUE

T

he Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 dramatically altered the control and reality of the Old City. The Moroccan Quarter was eradicated and the Jewish Quarter greatly expanded.

Then, for a few years, Israel did not attempt to enforce further reformulations of the space and identity of the ancient community. But the calm was broken in the mid-1980s by Israeli efforts to Judaize the Islamic and Christian quarters. While the former prime minister Ariel Sharon launched this policy, Ehud Olmert, former mayor of Jerusalem and also former prime minister, accelerated the process of domination and hegemony by supporting extremist groups of Jewish settlers in the Old City and its surroundings. The goal was to expand Israeli territorial and political sovereignty and to fulfill the Zionist vision of transforming the Old City into the heart of the Israeli capital and the cornerstone of Jewish identity. Today, the Old City of Jerusalem is at the core of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The peace process began with the signing of the Oslo Agreement in 1993. This constituted a turning point in the Israeli policy on Jerusalem. The much touted quasi-autonomy granted to Palestinians, which seemingly gave them control of their cultural, service, economic, religious, and political institutions, was not granted to Jerusalem but only to the heavily populated areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hence, after Oslo, East Jerusalem, which had been the metropolitan center for Palestinian services, communication and economy and played religious and national roles for both Christian and Muslim Palestinians, no longer functioned as a capital. The effect of those actions was to isolate Palestinian Jerusalem from its natural extended hinterland and from its spatial and functional continuity and interaction with the other regions of the West Bank. The disjunction of the city from its surroundings reached an apex with the construction of the Separation Wall.

The wall precipitated a migration into East Jerusalem and the Old City of thousands of Palestinians. This influx exacerbated the already poor socio-economic life of the city.

The failure of Camp David II negotiations (2000) and the subsequent failure of the Israeli Labor Party in the 2001 elections (which effectively cancelled the progress made in the Taba negotiations that followed Camp David) constituted another turning point, as Israel resumed the implementation of a number of plans to consolidate and enhance its security domination and spatial hegemony within the Old City. For the first time since the occupation, Israel sought to set up a detailed plan for the Old City. It informed the international bodies, UNESCO in particular, of its execution of unilateral decisions that had excluded any role for Palestinian, Arab, Is-

lamic or western parties. We can say that the peace demarche, which excluded the Jerusalem issue from the negotiation table, has increased Israel’s domination and has accelerated settlement expansion, and it has abetted the incorporation of surrounding settlements into Israel by the construction of the Separation Wall. These maneuvers effectively destroyed Palestinian space and insulated East Jerusalem and the Old City from their immediate surroundings and from the West Bank regions. This realized Israel’s goal of enhancing its domination and powers over Jerusalem, particularly with respect to the Old City and its surrounding Holy Basin. Together, these latter areas make up four square kilometers. In Hebrew lore they constitute the center of the Jewish patrimony and, in addition to the Old City, encompass the ancient City of David in Silwan.

The Physical Structure of the Old City The surface area within the walls of the Old City is approximately 900 dunums (.91 sq.k,), or approximately 225 acres, an area somewhat less than one square kilometer. Today it is divided into four ethnic/religious quarters: Muslim, Jewish, Armenian, and Christian. Within the latter, neighborhoods are based along sectarian (e.g. Greek Orthodox and Latin Patriarchy) affiliation. The Muslim Quarter is Sunni; the Jewish quarter is a mixture of religious and secular families. And within the four areas there is a gradation in the social structure, the infrastructure, and the roads network. When viewed closely, the Old City is not a homogenous community, but rather has the complexity one associates with urban life.

The Old City has had its current configuration since Ottoman rule, during which time the wall was built and the city boundaries set. The first municipality was created inside the walls in 1863. Soon after, the built-up areas outside the walls were added to the municipal administration, these became neighborhoods such as Al Musara, Sheikh Jarrah, and Bab As Sahira.

The Old City’s walls constitute its physical boundaries, and its gates provide contiguity with the surrounding neighborhoods.

The walls are the signature structure of the entire city, a key element of the city landscape, and are a major tourist attraction. The height of the Old City walls reach 17 meters in some areas, and they have an average height of 11.6 meters. They are two meters thick in most places and they are interrupted by 34 towers and 11 gates, four of which are closed. It is fair to say that its scale and architectural style give a special image to the city. During the British Mandate (1918-1948), Jerusalem’s boundaries expanded to include a western area where a Jewish concentration had developed, as well as several new Palestinian neighborhoods in the east and south. In 1948, as a consequence of the war, Jerusalem was divided physically and geo-politically into two municipalities—Israeli and Palestinian.

The latter section was placed under Jordanian control, which lasted from 1948 to1967. Originally, the Palestinian area of

the city included East Jerusalem and the Old City. During the Jordanian era, the Palestinian Jerusalem territory expanded further to include villages and neighborhoods east and north of the Old City. Jerusalem’s boundaries assumed their current approximate configuration after the Israeli occupation of 1967, although there are differences between the Israeli and Palestinian definitions of those boundaries.

The only significant modification to the urban fabric occurred after the occupation of 1967, when the Jewish Quarter was created on the demolished area that had supported the Ash Sharaf and the Al Maghariba (Moroccan) neighborhoods. That change reflected Israeli control and altered the Old City’s social structure.

Under Israeli control, the Old City was divided strictly along religious and ethnic lines; this went against the reality of the organic mixed development that had taken place over centuries.

While defining the physical borders of administrative units is very important, it is not enough. Equally important are the physical structures of building components, the land use, and the relationship of the units to areas within and outside the walls.

Jerusalem Society in the Old City The society of the Old City is divided into three religious groups: Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. Collectively, these religious and social groupings create a mosaic that manifests an urbanization process moving between tradition, modernity, and globalization. Residents in some Old City neighborhoods maintain an identity with lands outside Palestine, such as East Africa, Afghanistan, Armenia and Morocco. They came to Jerusalem for religious reasons and have added behaviors and traditions from their mother country to Jerusalem society, while at the same time maintaining strong feelings of identity with their mother land. In short, in the present situation, a homogeneous Jerusalem identity does not exist and is in reality not possible. 2

LAND AND TERRITORY BRITISH MANDATE 1917-1948

2

PEEL PLAN 1937

ONU PLAN 1947

ISRAEL 1949

ISRAEL 1967

PROJECTED GROWTH

WEST JERUSALEM

EAST JERUSALEM Old City

Legend Separation Separation WallWall Green line Green Line Area assigned for growth of Area assigned for growth of Arab neighborhoods Arab neighborhoods Projected areaarea for future Projected for future Israeli settlement expansion Israeli settlement expansion Metropolitan Jerusalem Metropolitan Jerusalem Nature reserves Nature reserves

PEACE WITH EGYPT

ALLON PLAN 1967

RABIN PLAN 1992

SHARON PLAN 1992

CLINTON PLAN 2000

Palestinian Israeli Others

3

CENTER OF LIFE

EVERYDAYS STRUGGLE FOR A HOME ISRAEL AND WEST BANK

I

n 2007 there was the 40th anniversary of the 1967 war: Israel was celebrating 40 years of reunification while Palestinians were commemorating 40 years of occupation.

The State of Israel was declared in 1948 by decision of the United Nations. Immediately after its declaration a war between the State of Israel and the surrounding Arab nations broke out. The 1948 war ended with Israeli forces controlling West Jerusalem and Jordanian forces controlling the eastern part of the city, including the Old City. A ceasefire agreement was reached dividing the city along what came to be known as the Green Line, the border recognised by the international community.

During the 6-day war in 1967, Israel occupied a large piece of Jordanian territory known as the West Bank. Most of this territory was placed under military government, but the eastern part of Jerusalem, together with some 28 villages around the city, was annexed and made officially part of Israel.

The United Nations recognize the Green Line – the border set after the war in 1948 – as the official Israeli border. The occupation and the annexation of East Jerusalem is internationally contested as it breaches the Geneva Conventions which set the rules of warfare. With a number of resolutions the UN Security Council called upon Israel to return to the status pre-1967 – which meant to withdraw from the West Bank – but those resolutions were all ignored.

4

Circles of Control Israel has set up a complex system of laws that regulate the lives of the Pa-lestinians and with it their access to Jerusalem: Palestinians living in East Jerusalem hold a blue Jerusalem ID which identifies them as permanent residents, but not as Israeli citizens. This means that every year they have to prove that their centre of life is in East Jerusalem, otherwise they lose their status as residents forever and have to move out of the city. In

this way the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are trapped inside the city, unable to move (e.g. for work) to another city for a couple of years. If they do so, they will not be allowed to live in their native city anymore.

The restrictions have been progressively put into force since 1967, but with the outbreak of the Second Intifada they became even stricter. Now East Jerusalem is isolated from the West Bank and this causes severe problems to the Palestinian community.

0 15 30 60 Like three circles of control, the Km Israeli settlements are strategically positioned around the Old City. The first circle goes around the Haram Al-Sharif / Temple Mount, inside the walls of the Old City, and is made up of single houses. The second circle is set around the Old City, with Jewish settlers taking over large pieces of Palestinian neighbourhoods. And finally the third circle of control consists of vast settlements that were newly built on confiscated land.

While Jewish settlements are growing in East Jerusalem, for Palestinians it is almost impossible to obtain a building permit.

So they build illegally in order to meet their needs and must thus live with the ever present threat of their house being demolished.

Yet another way to make life hard for Palestinians in Jerusalem

{

}

“We were talking two completely different languages. They were thinking they were liberating the land, and we were thinking they were occupying the land.”

Ibrahim Dakkak, a Palestinian builder

is the city’s tax system. This unbalanced distribution of public money divides Jerusalem into two very different cities and you can often hop from one to the other simply by crossing the street.

The source of all this discriminatory treatment is the official Israeli policy of making sure that Jews remain the clear majority in Jerusalem and excluding the possibility of Jerusalem becoming the capital of a viable Palestinian state.

International Oversight A key part of the strategy is the enhancement of the role of UNESCO, to the position of acting supervisor over a process of revitalization and rehabilitation of the Old City that includes both Israelis and Palestinians. The City of Jerusalem, the Holy City, has its own character and distinctiveness. It therefore requires tools, policies and strategies that understand and pro-

tect its uniqueness. The continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is slowly assassinating the space of Jerusalem, despite the promises of humanitarian, religious and nationalist organizations to protect it.

Settler Ideology They are also involved in another activity with a strong potential for danger: archaeological excavations taking place in and around the Old City. Of these, arguably the most controversial of all is the dig being carried out in the Muslim Quarter near the mosques of Haram al-Sharif. Intended to reveal traces of Jewish history, the excavations are damaging traces of other periods that do not match the ideological aspirations directing the work. the long term result, unless this process is reversed, will be the Judaization and de-Arabization of the Old City. Clintonian general principle: “Where there are Israelis belongs to Israel; where there are Palestinians belongs to the Palestinians.”

Jerusalem Master Plan Analysis of the Jerusalem Master Plan shows how there is an increasing restriction of the development possibilities of Arab neighborhoods. This development is as balanced and wide as is necessary to meet the present and future needs of the Arab population in the statements of principle. It is rather unbalanced when we analyse the substantive contents of the plan.

It is insuficient (and sometimes just rhetorical) in terms of real opportunities. Therefore, even if the plan tends to present itself as merely a technical tool (and at first sight it may even seem to be a progressive planning document able to meet the needs of arab Jerusalemites), deeper analysis of the feasibility of its contents shows the master plan for what it really is: a tool for encouraging Jewish settlement in the eastern part of the city, while it pays little attention to the real needs of the Arab population. Consequently, the Jerusalem master Plan can be considered the most recent and comprehensive part of the israeli “Judaization” strategy. Nonetheless, it presents some elements of discontinuity with regard to urban policies implemented by the israeli authorities in Jerusalem since 1967. For instance, it explicitly recognizes the need to solve the problem of inadequate infrastructure in Arab neighborhoods and the need to meet the enormous demand for residential building by the arab population. moreover, probably for the first time in an official Israeli document, the impracticability of a 70:30 Jewish-arab demographic balance is stated. it is not by chance that the plan has been strongly resisted by the Israeli right wing. Of course all these statements have a rhetorical value beyond the substantive value and they will probably have little real effectiveness in modifying the practical situation with regard to Arab neighborhoods. 2

Settlem 24.5 km

Residency Revocation

EAST JERUSALEM IN NUMBERS Demolitions 133

Residency revocations 1067

75

82

54

99

74

41

2

222

207

229

85

95

90

19

19

19

75

70 19

67 19

West Bank

WEST BANK

East Jerusalem

People in the Old City Herod’s Gate

Jordan Valley

Jenin

199 Structures Demolished

Damascus Gate

Tubas

89 Residential Structures 401 People Displaced

MUSULMAN QUARTER

Tulkarm

Lions Gate

New gate Nablus

Qalqiliya

Other

CHRISTIAN QUARTER

Salfit

200 Structures Demolished

East Jerusalem Dome of the Rock

Holy Sepulcre

27 Residential Structures 181 People Displaced

Residents 303,429

Jaffa Gate

Wailing Wall

Jerusalem Periphery

60 Structures Demolished Jericho

Dung Gate

East Jerusalem in Number 100 m

Sion Gate

42 Structures Demolished

Bethlehem

22 Residential Structures

74,4% of the Arab children

45,1% of theJew children

88 People Displaced

36% of the Jerusalem population

61 Residential Structures

65,1% of the Arab families 30,8% of the Jewish families

327 People Displaced

Demolitions 2009

People People displaced Displaced

191

3,716

11

10

2010 606 People

20

09

Feb 2012 310 People

20

08

20

20

04

03

20

20

02

20

01

00

20

2009 643 People

2011 1,094 People Demolitions by Feb 2012 310 People Demolitions by Type type

Residency Revocation Undefined

105 Administrative

70

Undefined

23%

45

89 360

Military

2011 1,094 People Feb 2012 310 People

Demolitions by Type

Administrative

2,100

1,545

873

674

1990-2000

1980-1990

1970-1980

492 1967-1970 616

1,905

1,454

1,545 2,774

7,554 873

674

1990-2000

1980-1990

1970-1980

1,905

1,454

2010 606 People

395

105

2000Feb 2012 12,191

54

23%

360

158

1

1067

Punitive 89

6%

Undefined

5,367

7,804 492

2009 643 People

2000Feb 2012 12,191

27%

47%

7,804 2,187

Demolitions by Decade & Type

6%

47%

19

67 19

2,187

99

54

Military

3,716

Total 622 Residential 222

616

1967-2.2012 395 Demolitions by T DemolitionsAdministrative

by Decade & Type Military 1581967-2.2012 Punitive 27% 671

10

00

Feb

229

Total 145 Residential 50

20

011207

222

05

272

Total 622 Residential 222

Punitive

Total 439 Residential 140

20

010

20

20

671

717

Residential 140

2011 1,094 People

Demolitions by decade by &Decade type& Type Demolitions

Total 275 Residential 116

009

012

45

16

Unplanned Areas 21.3 km2

82

2009 643 People 65,1% of the Arab Totalfamilies 145 2012 Feb Residential 50 2010 60628 People 30,8% of the Jewish families

07

41

22%

84

2011

20

30%

Feb

Residential 116 Total 622 Residential Total 222 439

85

2012

93

90 2010 Families under the Total 14581 75 Residential poverty line50

20

35%

Residency Rev

Total 439

45,1% of theJew children Residential 140 Total 275 2009

99

People Displaced

19

2011

13%

Zoned for Green Areas and Public Infrastructure 15.5 km2

133

2010

06

Zoned for Palestinian Construction 9.2 km2

05

Zoning

Children under the Structures Demolished poverty line Total 275 Structure Residential 74,4%116 of the Arabdemolished children

20

Zoning Expropriated for Israeli Settlements 24.5 km2

People Displaced

Structures Demolished

80

121 Structures Demolished

Families under the poverty line

Residents 303,429

The Dead Sea

19

Hebron

75

Hebron

uctures Demolished

Israelis

Children under the Palestinians poverty line

Jerusalem

East Jerusalem

1363

36% of the Jerusalem population

JEWISH QUARTER

ARMENIAN QUARTER

23 Residential Structures

4577

Al-Aqsa Mosque

Ramallah

97 People Displaced

Golden Gate

19

mbers

191

11

20

10

09

20

20

08

07

20

06

20

05

20

04

20

03

20

20

02

01

20

20

20

00

105

272

158

19

lanned Areas 1.3 km2

717

395

28

16

80

41

739

616

45

10

84

20

93

05

81

20

90

00

99

1363

20

Demolitions

19

stinian ruction 9.2 km2

Zoned Areas a Infrastr 15.5 km

4577

94%

5,367

of Palestinian739 permit applications are denied

2,100

992,774

Military Undefined

94%

1967-1970 7,554

2

41

74

Administrative Punitive

of Palestinian perm 272 5 222 applications are den 207

UPPER AND LOWER LAYERS

DIGGING TO CHANGE THE HISTORY

T

he city has been demolished eighteen times by natural and human forces. Dealing with the existing surface layer that contains the residents, their housing, the community services, the infrastructure

and the economy is only part of the answer. Underlying these are the history, narratives, and values of the residents. There is also the archeological and symbolic importance of lower layers that refer to the right to own the space and to govern it. An intelligent administration must deal with the visible physical structure in parallel with the invisible domain of symbolic values in the minds and memories of the people, for these have a functional utility in their lives in the Old City. It is then important to understand that the lower layers affect the upper layers; they empower historical sites; they add symbolic value to spiritual spaces and, of course, they support the structures of upper layer buildings. Intelligent administration will assure that rehabilitation and renovation of upper layer buildings take the lower layers into consideration--avoiding demolition and destruction. new multi-floor structures have been built that exceed the height of the Old City walls. This corruption of the Old City’s appearance is the result of the political, social, and cultural distortions which are still on-going in the area today.

The archaeological excavations have become a main channel for efforts to create a new “Old City”. Excavation sites are changing the lay of the land, lending force to an historical narrative focusing on the Jewish people, and marginalizing the Palestinian residents from their environment and from their connection to the Temple Mount/al-Haram a-Sharif. The excavations have broad implications for the multi-cultural character of the city and for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

SILWAN AND THE OLD CITY

6

Jerusalem – World Heritage Site In 1981, the Old City of Jerusalem and its walls were declared by the Kingdom of Jordan as a World Heritage Site. In 1982, Jerusalem and its walls were declared an Endangered World Heritage Site. Jerusalem is the only city on the World Heritage List that, according to this list, are not considered to be under the sovereignty of any nation.

The Israeli authorities exercise power over ancient ruins, and over time the entire Old City of Jerusalem and its surroundings have been declared both an archaeological and world heritage site. This means that construction is prohibited without prior archaeological examination of the area.

According to the World Heritage Site Convention (WHC), the Old City must be protected from building and development within and outside of its walls. In keeping with this, extensive archaeological excavations adjacent to the walls, and building such as the tourist complex known as the Kedem Center, which will be erected outside of the walls, constitutes a violation of the preservation of Jerusalem as a World Heritage Site. Because the Old City of Jerusalem was declared as a World Heritage Site without being associated with a particular country, it is under the jurisdiction of the UNESCO offices in Paris, and not in Jerusalem or Ramallah. Despite this, UNESCO is attempting to work with all the parties involved in Jerusalem. The head of the Israel Committee for World Heritage in UNESCO is a key partner in protecting the city’s heritage. In 2011, the Ministry of Education appointed an architect, Aryeh Rachamimov, to head the committee. Rahamimov is one of the main architects working in East Jerusalem, and he is involved in many plans of settlers and the authorities. He is also the planner of the Kedem Center, slated for construction in the Givati Parking Lot. Therefore, it seems that the appointment testifies to collaboration between settler organizations in East Jerusalem and the Israeli government, and their shared interests. Naturally, this situation obviates the ability of UNESCO’s Israel Com-

mittee for World Heritage to consolidate a professional and independent opinion pertaining to the plans for construction and development in the Old City of Jerusalem.

The Antiquities Authority in East Jerusalem Almost all of the archaeological excavations in the Village of Silwan and in the Old City are carried out by the Antiquities Authority. The excavating archaeologists are subordinate to this authority, and it is vested with scientific responsibility for their activities. Funding for the excavations comes from settler organizations, such as Elad in the Village of Silwan. As part of the archaeological digs, the surface and subsequent layers are necessarily being destroyed. Since the surface layer will never return to its original state, the Antiquities Authority bears the legal responsibility for preventing excavations expected to wreak irreparable destruction. The archaeological excavations in the Givati Parking Lot and in Beit Haliba included removal of various archaeological layers that are no longer visible in the area. The Antiquities Authority could have left some of the archaeological structures from later periods, for example, the Abbasid layer in the Givati Parking Lot. In so doing, the authority could have presented a continuum of the layers excavated. It appears that the decision to remove these layers was intended to ease the work of the entrepreneurs in the event of future building. The more that layers are removed en masse, and the deeper the excavation, the larger the underground area available to the builder. The decision of the authority to excavate was undertaken without consulting with other interest groups and without soliciting the opinion of the local residents. The agreement of the Antiquities Authority to carry out excavations that suit the political plan of the government of Israel, leads to the implementation of work methods that are unacceptable in scientific research. For example, horizontal excavations of the tunnels and underground spaces, rather than stratigraphic (ver-

tical) excavation, from the surface to the depths of the earth, that would expose all levels of the site. In East Jerusalem, the professional status of the Antiquities Authority lends credibility to a policy that emphasizes particular strata and ignores others.

The funds that Israel has invested in tourism and archaeological initiatives in Jerusalem’s historic basin since 2005 and the funds that it plans to invest in these projects by 2019 amount to approximately one billion shekels. A significant portion of the money was invested and will be invested in the future, in the area of the Village of Silwan and the Old City. The project at hand is complex and long-term, and it is anticipated that its various parts over time will create a new reality. Each excavation is perceived by the public as an isolated issue, and the relationship between the excavations and their cumulative influence are not always clear. Only an overall treatment of the issue illustrates the change that the excavations bring about in

the nature of the area and the changes that they bring about in the space, both above and below ground. The large investments and archaeological excavations changing the lay of the land, together with the presentation of the antiquities as proof of the historical right of the people of Israel to these sites, create a new historical basin. The Village of Silwan thus becomes the City of David site, the area of the Temple Mount/al-Haram a-Sharif is identified with the Ophel excavations and the Kotel Tunnels, and all of these emphasize Jerusalem of the Second Temple Period and ignore the importance of the city for members of other religions and cultures. The tunnels that connect Silwan and the Old City create a physical contiguity and uniform historical narrative that ignores the Palestinian residents. The excavations under the canopy of sky and those in the depths of the earth together create a new Jerusalem, a city based on a physical connection established between the various archaeological sites. The structure that will be erected according to plan

in the Givati Parking Lot will serve as a central tourist route for the entire area. Any political solution that separates between the various parts of the Old City and the Village of Silwan will have to cope with this tourist setup that spreads out across the area and beneath it underground. The State of Israel is responsible for enabling freedom of worship and culture to members of all of the ethnic groups and people in Jerusalem. As the body responsible for this city, it must present the history of the city from its inception and to this day in a balanced manner in which all of its layers are present. The authorities responsible for the antiquities of the city can present a city whose complex past comprises an inseparable part of its complex present. In Jerusalem’s reality, and in an environment that is daily growing more extreme, emphasis of Jerusalem’s past as part of life today is not a privilege but a necessary result of the struggle against extremists on both sides and a means of building a life of dignity for all residents of the city, side-by-side. 2

Third Wall Sukenik and Mayer 1925-27 Ben-Arieh and Netzer 1972-73

Givat Ram Avi-Yonah 1949, 1968

Mount of Olives Vincent 1910-13 Corbo 1959

City Wall Hamilton 1937-38 Damascus Gate Hamilton 1937-38 Hennesy 1964-66

Qualat-Galud Warren 1867-70 Vincent 1912 Bahat and Ben-Ari 1971-72

Saint Sepulcher Church Wilson 1863 Harvey 1933-34 Corbo 1961-63

Pool and S Anne Church White Friars Mause 1863-76, 1888-1900 Antonian Fortress Clermont-Ganneau 1873-74 Vincent 1910-13 Benoit 1972 Struthion Cistern Birket Israin Warren 1867-70 Warren 1867-70 Ecce Homo Arch Clermont-Ganneau 1873-74 Temple Mount Warren 1867-70

Golden Gate Schick 1891

Getsemani Orfall 1909

Wilson’s Arch Muristan Wilson and Warren 1867-70 Warren 1867-70 Kenyon (G) 1961-70 Lux 1970-71

First Wall Warren 1867-70

Solomon Stables Warren 1867-70

Tyropoeon Valley Hamilton 1931

Citadel Johns 1934-40 Amiran and Eltan 1958-69

Robinson’s Arch Warren 1867-70 Upper City Avigad 1969

Armenian Gardens Kenyon (L) 1961-67 Bahat and Broshi 1971

Givati Parking Lot Ben Ami 2007-

Burg Kabrit Margovsky 1970-71 High City Broshi 1971-72

David’s Tomb Pinkerfield 1949

City Wall Bliss and Dickie 1894-97 First Wall Modsley 1871-75

Kenyon E

S. Peter in Gallicantu Germer-Durand 1889 Kenyon D2

Kenyon B

100

200

CITY OF DAVID Ophel Wall Warren 1867-70 Warren Shaft Warren 1867-70 Parker 1909-11 Gihon Spring Warren 1867-70 Schick 1886-1900 Parker 1909-11 West Gate Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1927-28 Siloam Pool Warren 1867-70 Schick 1880 Siloam Church Blise and Dickie 1849-97 Other Sites Kenyon S, R, M, H, P, A, N, K, O, F Weill 1913-14 Clermont-Ganneau 1873 Guthe 1881

300 m

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION SITES 7

SILWAN

GIVATI PARKING LOT

DRONE PICTURE

CITY OF DAVID (c. 1010-970 B.C.) Western Stepped Road and Central Drainage Canal Mount Moriah David’s Palace

Pool

Kidron Valley

8

Siloah Pool

S

ilwan is a poor and densely populated Palestinian neighbourhood just south of the Old City wall. It is in fact the most ancient part of Jerusalem.

Silwan is a case study of Israeli policy in East Jerusalem. At the same time, there is a growing impression that Silwan is the keystone to a sweeping and systematic process, whose aim is to gain control of the Palestinian territories that surround the Old City, to cut the Old City off from the urban fabric of East Jerusalem, and to connect it to Jewish settlement blocs in northeast Jerusalem.

Palestinian Point of View A group of fundamentalist Jewish settlers has been buying land in Silwan and has settled in a few dozen houses here. Sometimes they got to buy the houses through threats and coercion.

In the centre of Silwan they built an archaeological park, “The City of David”, where remains of biblical and pre-biblical Jerusalem can be seen. The City of David is a cooperative effort by fundamentalist settlers and the Israeli government – it is officially a national park but is in fact run by a private political organization. Below the park, in the El-Bustan (garden) neighbourhood, by the spring around which Jerusalem was started, demolition orders have been issued for 88 Palestinian homes because of plans to build a new tourist site, the “Holy Garden”.

In Silwan, as in the Muslim quarter, Jewish houses can be identified by Israeli flags and by the private armed guards, paid for by the state, who man their roofs and gates.

Israeli Point of View The “City of David” is the location of the Biblical City of Jerusalem. Since the 1980s, a private foundation has been trying to save the city and its surroundings from neglect and decay by residential revitalization with Jewish people.

The houses of Jewish settlers are surrounded by Palestinian houses that all have demolition orders pending because the owners of the land were precluded from obtaining building permits. 2 “I have done many things for the Jewish Jerusalem in the last 25 years. But for East Jerusalem, nothing at all! – neither pavements nor cultural institutions. Ah! We did install a sewage system, and we improved the water distribution. But that wasn’t for their good. It was simply because there were some cases of cholera there, and the Jews were afraid of contagion…”

Teddy Kollek, former Mayor of Jerusalem

[

]

THE CITY OF DAVID ARCHAEOLOGICAL PARK Western Wall Plaza

Dung Gate

Davidson Archaeological Center Ritual Baths (Mikvaot) Lane Givati Parking Lot Excavations

City of David Visitor Center

Ma’alot Ir David Street

Beit Hatzofeh Lookout

The Royal Quarter Ancient Tombs Lookout

Warren Shaft Siloah Pool Ascent

Tombs of the House of David

Walls of Ancient Jerusalem

Exit from the Canaanite Tunnel

Hezekiah’s Tunnel Kidron Valley

Wadi Hilwah neighborhood

Underground Trail Surface Trail Project Area

9

ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORTS MAIN DISCOVERIES

N

ew Archaeological and Numismatic Evidence for the Persian Destruction of Jerusalem in 614 CE.

The location of a gold hoard from the late Byzantine period found buried under the destruction debris of a large impressive building exposed in the excavations at the Givati parking lot seems to imply that it was imperial money in the hands of an official authority, intended for public needs. This could have been the result of an emergency coinage—an extraordinary limited issue struck in Jerusalem under hasty conditions. Evaluation of the archeological and numismatic evidence strongly suggests that the destruction of this large Byzantine architectural complex should be associated with the outcome of the Persian invasion of Jerusalem in 614 CE. During recent excavations at the Givati parking lot, located in the north-western side of the City of David hill, a cache of 264 gold coins was discovered. The cache was found in L.1772, the westernmost of three adjacent (interconnecting?) rooms of what appears to be the southernmost area of a large administrative building. This building continues to the north, beyond the limits of the excavation area. The few pottery sherds and glass fragments found near the hoard rule out the possibility that these coins were stored in a container. It seems that they were wrapped in cloth and originally stored on a shelf affixed to the northern wall of the room. Three depressions on one of the stones located immediately above the findspot of the hoard suggest the original location of the shelf. The cache was probably hidden in a stucco-coated niche behind moveable furniture.

When the room was destroyed along with the entire building, the shelf with the coins collapsed. After years underground any organic material associated with this hoard has disappeared.

This would explain how the coins were found packed together in the dirt within the destruction layer. This hoard is a unique find in this context, and it provides an absolute date to the destruction of the building. The recent discoveries related to the late Byzantine period in the northern part of the City of David spur are the focus of this paper. These finds have shed new light upon Jerusalem at the close of the Byzantine period. The Persian conquest of Palestine in 614 CE, one of the dramatic events that mark ‘the beginning of the end’ of the Byzantine domination in Palestine in the early seventh century seems to be well reflected in the archaeological record at this site.

The first third of the seventh century CE was a time of great turbulence in the Land of Israel. The Persian conquest of 614

10

CE was the first in a serious of violent events: it was followed, in 628 CE, by the Byzantines regaining control; five years later, the earthquake of 633 struck; and finally, in 638 CE, the Islamic conquest took place. These events caused great damage to numerous buildings throughout the country, which is visible in the archaeological record at various sites. Unfortunately, precise dating within the seventh century CE is not certain; thus, the attribution to one of the above-mentioned historical events in general and to the Persian sack in particular seems extremely difficult. The archaeological remains associated with the Persian conquest are especially meagre in Jerusalem, which, according to the historical sources, suffered the most violent attack. According to historical sources, the Persian conquest of Jerusalem was a violent event which caused great destruction in the city and cost the lives of many residents. However, this conquest and the following 14 years of Sassanid rule in Palestine were too short to leave any significant remains. The only evidence largely accepted as representative of the Persian devastation of the city in 614 CE is the mass burials excavated in sites around Jerusalem. The destruction of churches and monasteries in Jerusalem and their swift restoration, as reported by some sources, are hardly evident in the archaeological record.

Signs of damage, sometimes followed by restoration, were discovered in other sites. In certain cases, it is hard to assign a precise date to the burnt layers of the seventh century noticed in several churches; in other cases, the churches mentioned by the ancient sources remain unidentified. It is noteworthy that some of the churches mentioned by Antiochus Strategos, among the ones that suffered severe damage (e.g., Eleona on Mount of Olives, St. Stephen in the northern part of the city, and the Nea Church), do not provide any archaeological evidence to support the Persian destruction. In several Byzantine residential quarters excavated in Jerusalem, seventhcentury destruction layers were noticed. These were sometimes associated by the excavators with the Persian conquest. Such was the case of the Byzantine street lined with shops and residential buildings discovered by Crowfoot and Fitzgerald on the upper slope of the City of David. Evidence for the Persian conquest was also claimed to have been found in the excavations south of the Temple Mount. In the northern part of the city, a thick destruction layer and clear indication of repairs were exposed

by Hamilton, possibly associated with the Persian conquest.

It should, however, be emphasised that to date, these destruction layers have yielded no clear evidence to suggest they were caused by the Persian attack on the city. In this respect, the gold hoard, most likely imperial money, found under destruction debris in the City of David, provides a rare opportunity to provide an absolute dating for the destruction of the building.

Given a 613/614 CE date at the latest for the hoard, coupled with the fact that it was uncirculated and that the owner did not came back to collect it, it is likely that the destruction took place during that year. Evaluation of the archeological evidence discussed in this paper strongly suggests that the destruction of the large Byzantine building recently exposed in the City of David should be associated with the outcome of the Persian invasion to Jerusalem in 614 CE. Unlike other contemporary buildings in Jerusalem, which suffered damage in the seventh century and were repaired shortly afterwards, this building was the target of deliberate destruction and was never rebuilt. 2

Images Fig. 1. An aerial view of the excavation, looking north.

Fig. 2. Plan of the spacious building and its purification annex.

Fig. 3. Three halls inside the building. Note the rectangular stones of the vaults and the breach in Wall 958, looking southeast.

Fig. 4. Miqveh 2042 on the right. Water Cistern 1689 is located to its south; view looking northwest. Fig. 5. Column drums incorporated as spolia within Late Roman walls built directly above the ruined Early Roman spacious building; view looking north.

Fig. 6. The narrow breach in Wall 958, looking north.

Fig. 7. Ritual baths and water installations in northern wing of building from Second Temple period.

Fig. 8. Foundations and walls in one of the Byzantine buildings.

2

8

1

5

7 6

3

4

11

17

9

15

16

14

12

12

L

ower City of Jerusalem on the Eve of Its Destruction, 70 c.e.: A View From Hanyon Givati.

An architectural complex dating to the Early Roman period consists of a large edifice and a purification annex, featured solid dates that mark both its phase of foundation as well as its demise. Accordingly, its construction is dated to the first century c.e.; the scores of coins found buried in the destruction layer inside the building date its end to the time of the First Jewish Revolt in the year 70 c.e. This striking complex makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the urban layout of the Lower City of Jerusalem on the eve of its destruction.

In the numerous excavations conducted in the past 100 years throughout the Lower City, no building constructions of large scale dating to the Early Roman period were uncovered. This was the reason behind the widely accepted view of the Lower City as a rather poor neighborhood, lacking wealthy structures.

However, excavations carried out in recent years in Jerusalem seem to have succeeded in modifying this opinion.

In the course of the salvage excavations in the Givati Parking Lot (Hanyon Givati) at the City of David, a large architectural complex dating to the Early Roman period was unearthed.

This complex consists of a monumental building and a large purification annex which extends to the north of the building.

The stratigraphical setting at the site shows that the complex

covered the remains of the Hellenistic period below, and in turn was covered by the remains of the Late Roman period above. It appears that chronological gaps separate the building from both periods (i.e., Hellenistic and Late Roman periods).

While the remains of the Hellenistic settlement (second–first centuries b.c.e.) suggest a short time gap separating it from the Early Roman complex, the Late Roman occupation (late third century c.e.) was built at least two centuries after the destruction of the Early Roman complex. The more the remains of this structure were revealed, the more it became evident that they belonged to a spacious architectural complex extending across a large part of the excavation area. The numismatic finds uncovered in the destruction layer inside the building date its end to the time of the First Jewish Revolt in the year 70 c.e.

Following the exposure of this striking edifice from the end of the Early Roman period, questions arise regarding its function and identification. The 19th-century scholars were the first to map out the borders of Jerusalem as Josephus described them, and they were followed by many others. Common to all of these reconstructions is the principal buildings. This consistency stands out even more in all that relates to the reconstruction of the Lower City. Restricted in size, the Lower City was populated with residential buildings at the end of the Second Temple period. Until recently, the archaeological data concerning the Early Roman period in the Lower City was meager. The primary characteristics of the building remains of the period excavated in the Ophel included mostly rock-hewn miqvaot and water cisterns. Only very fragmentary remains of private dwellings were encountered. The excavations carried out by Crowfoot and Fitzgerald discovered “the great gateway, flanked by walls of great thickness,” dated by the excavators to the Bronze Age and up to the Hellenistic period. However, the stratigraphical and chronological attribution of this structure is problematic. It is very possible that these finds should be inter-

preted not as city fortifications, but as the remains of another monumental structure dated to the Early Roman period. Excavations by Bliss and Dickie in the southern part of the Lower City during the 19th century exposed a part of the Siloam Pool and a stepped street leading north, toward the Temple Mount.

Later on, other parts of this paved street were discovered by the expeditions of Johns and Kenyon. Despite the large number of excavations conducted throughout the Lower City, no monumental remains of private buildings such as those excavated in the Upper City were found. This is the reason behind the widely accepted view of the Lower City as a rather poor neighborhood, lacking wealthy structures except for those built by the royal family from Adiabene. In recent years, excavations carried out in the Lower City seem to have succeeded in modifying this opinion. A large dwelling complex was discovered in the southern part of Tyropoeon, close to the Siloam Pool.

Originally three stories high, this building contained a number of rock-hewn rooms and was dated by the excavator to the first century c.e.. Both its size and architectural characteristics suggest the high social status of its residents. In the first century c.e. the street, which originally was nothing but a simple road, was rebuilt on a much wider scale and turned into an impressive paved, stepped street with a drainage tunnel under it. It thus appears that in the first century c.e., the Lower City experienced clear changes in its layout, with large-scale building activity which turned it into a vivid neighborhood. This phenomenon can be explained by the general economic prosperity of Jerusalem in this time, which was, in turn, a direct outcome of the expanding phenomenon of pilgrimage to the Temple. In this regard, one can speculate on the identity of the new residents of the Lower City. It is possible that constantly growing communities of Diaspora Jews moved to Jerusalem in the first century c.e. and decided to settle down in this area, simply because the traditional elite neighborhoods in the Upper City no longer had reserves of free space. 2

Images Fig. 9. The gold hoard upon discovery.

Fig. 10. Plan of the southern part of the building with agricultural terrace and street.

Fig. 11. Artistic reconstruction of the building and associated remains.

Fig. 12. The street, paved with large rectangular stone slabs, showing curbstones adjacent to its eastern side; view to the south.

Fig. 13. The excavation area, aerial photograph, looking south.

Fig. 14. Limekiln from the Byzantine–Umayyad periods, view from above.

Fig. 15. The Byzantine-­period building and collapse of the Roman-­ period building, looking north.

Fig. 16. Gold hoard.

Fig. 17. Roman peristyle building, looking north.

11

10

13

13

KEDEM COMPOUND GIVATI VISITOR CENTER

S

ince 2005, the government of Israel has been promoting tourism development as an overarching project in the historical basin of Jerusalem. The initiative focuses on the Old City, the Village of

Silwan, and the open spaces surrounding them. One of the plan’s main projects is located primarily in the area of the Givati Parking Lot in the Village of Silwan. The area is located at the northern edge of the Village of Silwan, and has been excavated almost continuously from 2007 to this day. The government and the Elad non-profit organization, whose agenda is settlement and operation of tourist sites in East Jerusalem in order to strengthen the Jewish hold on it, are planning to establish a visitor center there to be called the “Kedem Center”. According to the plan, visitors will use the center as a starting point for a variety of routes in the Village of Silwan and the Old City. The excavations at the Givati Parking Lot, immediately adjacent to the Western Wall, are already connected to a tunnel north of the Ophel/Davidson Center excavations. Moreover, the excavations are connected to the Shiloah Pool in the southern part of the Village of Silwan. Two additional future projects relating to the Givati Parking Lot are the underground connection between it and the City of David visitor center, located across the street to the east, and an additional underground connection to the Ritual Bath Trail, located in the Ophel excavation area, immediately adjacent to the Old City Wall and ending just a few meters away from the Givati Parking Lot. The existing routes, together with the planned routes, will establish the Kedem Center as an alternative to today’s main tourist entrance to the Old City, the Jaffa Gate. This trend has been further enforced by the government decision of May 20, 2012 in a meeting held on the occasion of Jerusalem Day. According to the decision, the possibility of establishing a Bible museum in the Givati Parking Lot/Kedem Center in the Village of Silwan is being considered. The government’s decision constitutes an additional example of the close association between the plans of the settlers and the government plans. The Givati Parking Lot excavations were initially run by the Antiquities Authority and funded by Elad; subsequently, the Nature and Parks Authority joined Elad’s plan to build the Kedem Center in the excavation area. Approximately two months following the decision of the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee to approve the complex, the government announced that it had been decided to consider erecting a Bible museum there. If this decision is approved, the structure will receive much more legitimacy among the Israeli public, and strengthen the presence of the Elad organization in Silwan. The archaeological excavations in the Givati Parking Lot are the main pretense for establishing the Kedem Center tourism complex above them. The planned area of the Kedem Center is some 16,000 square meters, and it is expected to reach the height of the Old City walls. The structure is anticipated to have a decisive influence on the landscape, on the way in which the walls of the Old City are perceived and enter the public consciousness, the character of the space between the Village of Silwan and the Temple Mount/al-Haram a-Sharif, and the Village of Silwan itself. Additionally, it is expected to have far-reaching implications for movement in the area, access to residents’ homes, and development of the Wadi Hilweh neighborhood.

{

}

“I hope this plan finds itself in the dustbin of history.”

David Kroyanker, architect, urban planner and architectural historian of Jerusalem

CHARTER FOR THE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE (1990)

DEFINITION AND INTRODUCTION Article 1 The “archaeological heritage” is that part of the material heritage in respect of which archaeological methods provide primary information. It comprises all vestiges of human existence 14

and consists of places relating to all manifestations of human activity, abandoned structures, and remains of all kinds (including subterranean and underwater sites), together with all the portable cultural material associated with them.

LEGISLATION AND ECONOMY Article 3.

The protection of the archaeological heritage should be considered as a moral obligation upon all human beings; it is also a collective public responsibility. This obligation must be acknowledged through relevant legislation and the provision of adequate funds for the supporting programmes necessary for effective heritage management. The archaeological heritage is common to all human society and it should therefore be the duty of every country to ensure that adequate funds are available for its protection. Legislation should afford protection to the archaeological heritage that is appropriate to the needs, history, and traditions of each country and region, providing for in situ protection and research needs. Legislation should be based on the concept of the archaeological heritage as the heritage of all humanity and of groups of peoples, and not restricted to any individual person or nation. Legislation should forbid the destruction, degradation or alteration through changes of any archaeological site or monument or to their surroundings without the consent of the relevant archaeological authority.

INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION Article 9.

The archaeological heritage is the common heritage of all humanity. International cooperation is therefore essential in developing and maintaining standards in its management.

Principles for Subsequent Archaeological Development • The initiation of new excavations should be limited to the greatest extent possible. Every excavation must proceed slowly, with maximum sensitivity both to the needs of the residents and to scientific integrity. Unacceptable excavation methods should be rejected out of hand, such as excavation in the tunnels, and the enabling of visits of active excavations should be strived for as a standard.

• The excavation area of the Givati Parking Lot is a fait accompli. It should be integrated into the urban and archaeological environment where it is located, left open and accessible to the entire public, and any construction that would hide the antiquities and separate the excavation area from the Village of Silwan and from the Old City opposing it must be avoided.

• Public awareness of the political effect of archaeological excavations in the Jerusalem historic basin area and the Temple Mount must be strengthened. • Recognition of the fact that Jerusalem’s cultural heritage arises from the city’s historical importance to all of humanity, and not to a specific religion or people, must be increased.

VIEW OF THE EXCAVATIONS, october 2013

CHARTER FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC TOWNS AND URBAN AREAS (WASHINGTON CHARTER 1987) PREAMBLE AND DEFINITIONS All urban communities, whether they have developed gradually over time or have been created deliberately, are an expression of the diversity of societies throughout history. This charter concerns historic urban areas, large and small, including cities, towns and historic centres or quarters, together with their natural and man-made environments. Beyond their role as historical documents, these areas embody the values of traditional urban cultures. Today many such areas are being threatened, physically degraded, damaged or even destroyed, by the impact of the urban development that follows industrialisation in societies everywhere. “The conservation of historic towns and urban areas” is understood to mean those steps necessary for the protection, conservation and restoration of such towns and areas as well as their development and harmonious adaptation to contemporary life.

PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES 1. In order to be most effective, the conservation of historic towns and other historic urban areas should be an integral part of coherent policies of economic and social development and of urban and regional planning at every level.

3. The participation and the involvement of the residents are essential for the success of the conservation programme and should be encouraged. The conservation of historic towns and urban areas concerns their residents first of all.

METHODS AND INSTRUMENTS 12. Traffic inside a historic town or urban area must be controlled and parking areas must be planned so that they do not damage the historic fabric or its environment. 2

VIEW OF THE SURROUNDINGS, october 2013

KEDEM CENTER - photomontage, model and axonometry

15

TRAVEL TO THE HOLY LAND

ANCIENT AND MODERN PILGRIMAGE

1493, Andreas-Walsperger

1506, Filippo Giunta

1581, Heinrich Bunting

MARITIME WAYS

Venezia Marseille Barcelona

Nice

Ancona Livorno

Bar Bari

Gibraltar

Tessalonica

Durazzo

Palermo Siracusa

Athens

Adana Nicosia Haifa

Bengasi

16

Alexandria

JERUSALEM

1200 ca, Dutch Manuscript

1921, British Advertisement

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AND MAIN ROUTES Ceyhan

Adana Alanya

T U R K E Y

D繹rtyol

Silifke

Aleppo

Anamur Nicosia

Baniyas

CYPRUS

Hamah

Tartus

Hims

Tripoli

Palmyra

LIBAN Beirut

M E D I T E R R A N E AN SEA

S I R I A Damascus

Haifa

As-Suwayda

Tel Aviv Amman Jerusalem

Port Sa覺d Beer-Sheva

Al-Isma il覺yah

ISRAEL Il Cairo

As-Suways Suez

J O R D A N

Maan Elat

E G Y P T

Al-Aqabah

S A U D I A R A B I A

Tabuk Sharm Al-Sheikh 17

T

ourism by definition is a multi-sectoral subject, which integrates different disciplines in the economy of the city and the daily life of its residents and influences them.

Hence, it must be examined as a lever for development of social, economic and urban problems and goals that are common to tourism and the city: strengthening the population, attracting strong population to the city, strengthening the economic base of the city and the employment possibilities in it.

“The Tourist Industry” is an integrated industry that includes in addition to hotel accommodations, restaurants and cafes, transport (buses, taxis and airlines), tour agents, tour guides, and international conferences. It is estimated that for every dollar the tourist spends for the hotel, there is an income of 4 dollars for peripheral services. Tourism in Jerusalem has been a leading sector throughout all the years and an export factor within it is relative large. The tourist industry in Jerusalem has a number of unique characteristics that are worthy of note: • Utilization of an existing resource- The brand name “Jerusalem” is of a place that cannot be transferred to another place, for which there is a large world market and which, if carefully cultivated could make possible the strengthening of the city’s economy and its position in the world.

• A sacred place for three monotheistic religions of the world.

Under conditions of peace, Jerusalem could be an international focus for religious tourism.

• A center for international conventions and congresses, a brand that can and should be utilized to the full.

• Employment- In Jerusalem part of the labor force has no other professional skills. The tourism sector enables its employment as part of a training program that should not take long.

• Activity and Fame- Tourism increases the activity in the city.

The setting up of tourist functions and the upgrading of the road and the public space serves tourists, will also serve residents of the city who enjoy the contact with people from all over the world, and these in their turn give fame to the city in their respective countries.

The goals and objectives that have been defined can serve as an important lever for developing tourism in the city, and tourism, on the other hand, can serve as means of achieving these goals: - to base its status and continued development as the capital of the State of Israel, as a center for the Jewish people and as a city sacred to three monotheistic religions; Mt. Herzl - Cemetery - to preserve the holy sites sacred to the tree religions safe and open and to nurture the special spiritual character of the city.; Yad Vashem - to preserve the urbanHolocaust qualities Memorial and the special beauty Museum of the city; - to preserve the physical uniqueness of the old city within its walls and to set down criteria for the preservation of its visual basin; - to strengthen Jerusalem as a capital city and as a world city, and to improve public buildings, institutions, national and international sites, as crowd attractions; - to create an appropriate representative environment for places of cultural, historical and architectural value.

The aim is “To formulate a planning policy for the optimum utilization of the tourist industry in the city as a world city and a capital city, which will guide the development of land uses that support tourism, attractions and tourist infrastructure, and will decide the means for achievement of the programmatic goals as set out”. It is of great importance to define what a “tourist” is and the term Urban Tourism, in order to understand the activities of the consumers of tourist services in urban space. For this purpose, it is necessary to widen the definition of “tourist”, from a person who undertakes “tourist activities” only, to include also travelers whose major travel purpose is business or family visits. They are consumers of various tourist services, in addition to which they sleep over in the city. 2

Binyanei HaUma

''Menorah'' The Kenesset (House of Parliament)

The Israel Museum

Hotels

18

Jew Attractions

Convent of the Cross

TOURISM GEOGRAPHY Sanhedrin Tombs & Garden Ammunition Hill

St. Joseph St. John’s MT. SCOPUS

Shimon HaZadik Tomb

Tombs of the Kings

P P

Yad Vash Holocaust M Museum

Turgeman House Garden Tomb

P

Ethiopian Church

Rockefeller Museum

Sergey BIdg. P Russian Ch.

P

The Church of St. Anne

Mary’s Tomb &Church

sa

oloro

Via D

Bezalel

P MAMILLA

Jason’s Tomb

TEMPLE lorosa Via Do St. Mary MOUNT The Church Magdalene Ch. Church of the Ascension of the Holy Dome of the Rock Sepulchre Paternuster The Church of Church Tomb of Western Wall the Redeemer Dominus Hulda Tunnels Flevit Church Tomb of Suq El Bazar Abshalom P Al-Aqsa Mosque Western Wall Tower of David P P Hahurva HaOfel Syng.

Davidson Ctr. Archaeological Tomb of P Garden Zechariah P P P City of David P

MT. ZION Church of the David Dormition Tomb Mishkenot Sha'anannim

National Academy Of Science

P

Scotish Church

Islamic Museum

MT. OF OLIVES

Gethsemane Basilica of Agony

Hezekiah’s Tunnel St. Peter Gallicantu Pool of Church Siloam

SILWAN

Natural Science Museum

Christian Attractions

Muslim Attractions

P 0

100

200

Park Cemeterie Main City Gate Christian Holy Place Israeli Holy Place Musulman Holy Place Museum Market Hotel Bus Station Light Train Line Train Station Parking 300

400

500m

19

SOURCES BOOKS . Meron Benvenisti, City of stone : the hidden history of Jerusalem, Berkeley, University of California press, 1996 . Francesco Chiodelli, Gerusalemme contesa: dimensioni urbane di un conflitto, Roma, Carocci, 2012 . Philipp Misselwitz, Tim Rieniets City (edited by), City of collision: Jerusalem and the principles of conflicted urbanism, Basel, Birkhauser, 2006 . David Kroyanker, Gerusalemme: l'architettura, Venezia, Arsenale, 1994 . La battaglia per Gerusalemme, Quaderni speciali di Limes, Repubblica, Milano, luglio 2010 . Moni Ovadia, Francesco Chiodelli, Claudia De Martino, Enzo Maria Le Fevre Cervini, Enrico Molinaro, Ruba Saleh, Carmelo Severino, Alessandra Terenzi, Luca Zevi, Su Gerusalemme: strategie per il controllo dello spazio urbano, Castelvecchi, Roma, 2013 . Intenational Peace and Cooperation Center, Jerusalem, the Old City: the Urban Fabric and Geopolitical Implications, Publication XVII, 2009 . Malkit Shoshan, Atlas of the Conflict, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2010 . Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem 2013 . Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (JIIS), Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem 2013 . Nadav Shragai, Demography, Geopolitics, and the Future of Israel’s Capital: Jerusalem’s Proposed Master Plan, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2010 . Marco Allegra, Divisa, contesa, ineguale: il destino di Gerusalemme e della sua area metropolitana, Storia Urbana n° 128, 2010 . Simone Ricca, Reinventing Jerusalem: Israel's Reconstruction of the Jewish Quarter After 1967, London, Tauris, 2007 . Nadia Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2001 . Rafi Segal, Eyal Weizman, A Civilian Occupation – The politics of Israeli Architecture, Babel, Tel Aviv, London, 2003 . Eyal Weizman, Architettura dell'Occupazione: spazio politico e controllo territoriale in Palestina e in Israele, Mondadori, Milano, 2009 . Jorge Louis Borges, “A Israele”, “Israele 1969”, “Israele”, in Elogio dell’ombra, in Borges. Tutte le opere, Mondadori, Milano 2009 . Charles Warren, Underground Jerusalem, London 1876 . Marc Augé, Rovine e macerie, il senso del tempo, Bollati Boringhieri editore 2004 . Arnold Toynbee, La città aggressiva, Laterza, Bari, 1972 . Yad Vashem, Moshe Safdie, the Architecture of Memory, Baden, Lars Muller, 2006 . Frank Gaffikin, Planning in Divided Cities, Wiley-Blackwell, 2011 . Jon Calame, Esther Charlesworth, Città divise. Belfast, Beirut, Gerusalemme, Mostar e Nicosia, Medusa, Milano, 2012 . Stratis Tsirkas, Città alla deriva, Guanda, Milano, 2001 . Strategie della memoria: Architettura e paesaggi di guerra, Quaderni della Ricerca, Dipartimento di Culture del Progetto, University IUAV of Venice, 2014 . Valentina Bandieramonte, Chiara Cavalieri, Irene Guida, Kaveh Rashidzadeh eds., The Next Urban Question, Officina Edizioni, Venezia 2014 . Adolfo Natalini, Figure di pietra, Quaderni di Lotus, Milano 1984 . Mark Wigley, Constants New Babylon: The Hyper-Architecture of Desire, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 1999 . Yona Friedman, Sabine Lebesque, Yona Friedman: Structures Serving the Unpredictable, Rotterdam, 1999, NAi Publishers . Luigi Coccia (a cura di), Architettura e turismo, Milano,FrancoAngeli, 2012 . Alberto Ferlenga, Le strade di Pikionis, LetteraVentidue Edizioni, Siracusa, 2014

20

THESIS . Alberto Olcese, Il carattere della città: Non-Branding Identity per Gerusalemme, relatore Carlo Vinti, Iuav 2011 . Ruth Borkowski, Mascia Mantani, CoeXistence: ricucire il territorio di Gerusalemme: l'architettura al servizio della pace, relatore Renato Bocchi, Iuav 2006 . Awad Al-Ali, Le componenti della citta araba : Gerusalemme: analisi della "citta vecchia", relatore Enrico Fontanari, Iuav 1991 . David London, Cronaca di un delitto premeditato: superfetazioni a Gerusalemme, la razionalità individuale e le sue conseguenze urbane, relatore Paola Viganò, Iuav 2005 . Paolo Benedetti, Gerusalemme: confini dello spazio e confini dell’anima, Relatore: Prof. Gianfranco Battisti, Università degli Studi di Trieste, 2010 . Francesca Buonincontri, Architettura contemporanea e tracce

urbane e architettoniche dell’antico, Relatore: Prof. Alberto Cuomo, Università degli Studi di Napoli TRAVELS, LECTURES AND EXHIBITIONS . School of Doctorate Studies of the University IUAV of Venice, “City Portraits: Jerusalem, Two Parallel Cities”, International Conference, 15-16 May 2012 . Itinerant Master in “Architecture, Archeology and Museum Design – Innovative Design and Management of Archaeological Heritage”, Accademia Adrianea di Architettura e Archeologia Onlus Three Religions Workshop, prof. arch. Yair Varon Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, 4-12 October 2013 City of David: guided tour with prof. arch. Beni Levi The Israel Museum: visit to the exhibiton “Herod the Great: The King’s Final Journey” Dr. Kamil Sari: Greetings from Israel Antiquities Association prof. arch. David Guggenheim: Made in Israel - Between East and West along the History The Old City: Guided Tour, Giordana Moscati arch. Giora Solar (ICOMOS Israel), arch. Yoram Ginsberg (Ariel University) prof. Romolo Martemucci: Understanding and Interpreting in Archeo-tecture prof. Sandro Pittini: The time of places Il Quartiere Ebraico: tour e discussione con pro. arch. David Cassuto Davidson Center and Arhaeologiacl Park, guided tour Meeting with prof. arch. Saadia Mandel, chairman of The Society for Preservation of Israel Heritage Sites, Austrian Hospice Meeting with Father Eugenio Alliata, Convento della Flagellazione The Western Wall Tunne, guided tour . Prof. arch. Alberto Ferlenga, “Turismo e identità”, 2 April 2014, University IUAV of Venice, Atelier directed by prof. arch Mauro Marzo . Marc Augé, “L’archéologue, l’architecte et le temps”, DACC Conferences, 15 April 2014 . Ruba Saleh, Personal Interview, 16 June 2014 . Guido Morpurgo, Personal Interview, 10 July 2014 . 14th International Architecture Exhibition, "Fundamentals", Venice, 7 June - 23 November 2014 . Exhibition "Gerusalemme_Dove salgono i popoli", photographs

by Giovanni Chiaramonte, Ikona Gallery, Ghetto, Venice, 29 May - 26 October 2014 . Exhibition "2004 - 2014. Opere e progetti del Museo di Fotografia Contemporanea", Triennale di Milano, 3 July - 10 September 2014 WEBSITES ISRAELI JERUSALEM MUNICIPALITY www.mmi.gov.il www.govmap.gov.il www.jr.co.il jerusalem.com www.jerusalem.muni.il allaboutjerusalem.com HAARETZ www.haaretz.com CITY OF DAVID www.cityofdavid.org.il THE ISRAELI COMMITTEE AGAINST HOUS DEMOLITIONS www.icahd.org/eng EQUITABLE AND STABLE JERUSALEM WITH AN AGREED POLITICAL FUTURE - IR-AMIM ir-amim.org.il ISRAELI INFORMATION CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES btselem.org CENTER FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL hamoked.org FOR AN EQUITABLE AND STABLE JERUSALEM WITH AN AGREED POLITICAL FUTURE www.ir-amim.org.il PROMOTING PEACE IN ISRAEL www.peacenow.org.il ASSOCIATION FOR CIVIL RIGHTS IN ISRAEL www.acri.org.il/en PLANNERS FOR PLANNING RIGHTS www.eng.bimkom.com PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONS web.me.com/jerubus JERUSALEM CENTER FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS www.jcpa.org JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY www.antiquities.org.il THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE FOR ISRAEL STUDIES www.jiis.org

ISRAEL VIDEO NETWORK israelvideonetwork.com HISTORIC CITIES MAPS jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/maps/jer/ RAHAMIMOFF ARCHITECTS www.rahamimoff.com LUIS LABATON & PARTNERS CIVIL ENGINEERS www.luislabatonandpartners.com PALESTINIANS PALESTINIAN ACADEMIC SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS www.passia.org JERUSALEM CENTER FOR WOMEN www.j-c-w.org VISUALIZING PALESTINE visualizingpalestine.org COALITION FOR JERUSALEM www.coalitionforjerusalem.com CIVIC COALITION FOR DEFENDING PALESTINIANS' RIGHTS IN JERUSALEM www.ccdprj.ps www.civiccoalition-jerusalem.org SIX VOICES pointsofview.net EYE ON PALESTINE www.poica.com INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES www.international.icomos.org UNESCO whc.unesco.org UNITED NATIONS OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY www.ochaopt.org UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN THE NEAR EAST www.unrwa .org INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND COOPERATION CENTER www.ipcc.org ARCHEOLOGY IN THE SHADOW OF THE POLITICAL CONFLICT - EMEK SHAVEH alt-arch.org ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE apjp.org THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE unispal.un.org FOUNDATION FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE fmep.org POSTCARDS FROM JERUSALEM www.adamreynoldsphotography.com FRANCESCO JODICE PH www.francescojodice.com DAILY NEWS/INFORMATION CENTERS www.alternativenews.org www.internazionale.it www.xnet.co.il/architecture/ israelstreet.org www.jpost.com www.haaretz.com www.jewishencyclopedia.com BLOG www.timesofisrael.com terrasanta.net israelpalestineguide.wordpress.com silwanic.net blog.bibleplaces.com bibliobloglibrary.com www.generationword.com/jerusalem101 albustan-silwan-en.blogspot.it OTHERS rice.iuav.it iuavbc.iuav.it/digitallibrary/ en.wikipedia.org www.youtube.com maps.google.com GUIDES . Michel Rauch, Gerusalemme, Tommasi, Milano 2012 . Gerusalemme, Israele, Petra e Sinai, Mondadori, Milano 2012 . Meridiani: Israele, anno XXI, n. 167, Domus, Milano, aprile 2008 . Israele, Territori Palestinesi, Touring Editore, 2010 . BRAVE NEW ALPS, DECODE JERUSALEM text and images taken from multiple sources selected and edited by giovanna celeghin